If I were being perceived as "gay", I would make an effort to not be so swishy.
Like this guy, for example. He claims to be straight.
Obviously, there is room for improvement.
Posted on 11/08/2007 12:15:53 PM PST by fweingart
A Washington-based pro-family group says the Democrat-led House has cast aside the free-exercise clause of the First Amendment with its passage of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) (HR 3685).
On Wednesday the House voted 235-184 (see roll call vote) in favor of legislation that would prohibit employment discrimination based on "actual or perceived" sexual orientation. Due to a lack of support, openly homosexual Representative Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisconsin) withdrew an amendment that would have extended special protections to trans-gendered people and cross-dressers.
Matt Barber, policy director for cultural issues at Concerned Women for America (CWA), argues the bill threatens the religious freedom of Christian employees and employers who believe homosexuality is immoral.
"By passing this really Orwellian piece of legislation, the Democrat-led house has displayed exceptional arrogance here. They apparently believe they have carte blanche authority to essentially nullify any constitutional provision which they find bothersome -- and in this case that would be the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, which they've essential drawn a black line through," he says.
Barber says that through lobbying efforts his group was able to pull some Democrats and Republicans to their side. He says CWA has been trying to educate members of Congress about the threat the legislation poses to religious freedom. The fight over ENDA now shifts to the Senate, where Ted Kennedy (D-Massachusetts) is expected to introduce the measure.
Veto!
“Employment At Will” in many, many states.
That concept should be extended even to the current (and proposed) “federally protected classes”.
How I run my PRIVATE business is my business and my business ALONE. It’s time to get the goobermint out of the lives of private individuals AND THEIR PROPERTY by eliminating EEO requirements and Americans With Disability Act regulations, for a start.
What’s next?
Maybe an employer won’t be able to set a dress code for fear of offending one of these “protected” groups or even a new, made-up group?
Liberal bureaucrats showing arrogance? This is not news. When do they NOT? Some, apparently, are just now figuring this out.
Central government has ruined America and we have only ourselves to blame for letting them get away with it!
If this slide into slime isn't stemmed we'll be looking at the same scenario as did Germany between the wars!
I do have a problem with employers being able to tell you what you can do on your own time, but at the same time I do not think the government has any authority to pass a bill such as this any more than they have the authority or right to pass anti-smoking laws that pertain to private property while smoking remains a legal activity.
While I perceive firing people for their sexual orientation or their smoking habits as discriminatory I also think the owners of the businesses have every right to do so, as long as the firing is for doing the activity on the employers property. In other words if homos only practice their sexual activites at home or away from work, and if smokers only smoke at home or away from work(just two examples there are many more activities we could be talking about) then I don't really think employers have the right to fire a person for it.
Hiring people, however, is a totally different matter. If you hire people and tell them up front that you cannot be gay, or smoke, as a condition of employment, then that is legal and should not be legislated against, in fact it is unconstitutional to legislate against a persons right to hire people under whatever conditions the owner of the business sets forth. If the employees lied about their habits and are subsequently found out then the employers have every right to fire them as the employees have broken the contract they were hired under.
This bill is unconstitutional, period.
SO could I fire someone for having heterosexual sex at work?
If you are an enterprising attorney, you’ll find a way to help companies determine who is homosexual and find other reasons not to hire them within the bounds of the law. There are already billion-dollar firms which help companies hire foreign workers by creating spurious reason not to hire American workers.
If you look like a "tranny" I don't want you for my retail store (unless it's Hot Topic, where it would be a plus). Under this bill, your business would be destroyed by not hiring someone for that reason.
I think the bill should be vetoed and I agree with you.
The President has pledged to veto this insult to all believers of Free Speech.
He’s the employer, he or she can fire me for anything. I am sick of all this protectionism in the workplace that has coddled everyone into barely getting their jobs done.
I have been self employed now for 9 years. Prior to that I spent 11 with a giant corporation and they had to bend like a pretzel to fire anyone. Warnings, counseling....etc.... for people who just flat out sucked at their job, stole time or products or didn’t show up on time. ENOUGH!
H.R. 3685 would extend existing employment-discrimination provisions of Federal law, including those in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, to establish "a comprehensive Federal prohibition of employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation." The bill raises concerns on constitutional and policy grounds, and if H.R. 3685 were presented to the President, his senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill.
H.R. 3685 is inconsistent with the right to the free exercise of religion as codified by Congress in the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). The Act prohibits the Federal Government from substantially burdening the free exercise of religion except for compelling reasons, and then only in the least restrictive manner possible. H.R. 3685 does not meet this standard. For instance, schools that are owned by or directed toward a particular religion are exempted by the bill; but those that emphasize religious principles broadly will find their religious liberties burdened by H.R. 3685.
A second concern is H.R. 3685's authorization of Federal civil damage actions against State entities, which may violate States' immunity under the Eleventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
The bill turns on imprecise and subjective terms that would make interpretation, compliance, and enforcement extremely difficult. For instance, the bill establishes liability for acting on "perceived" sexual orientation, or "association" with individuals of a particular sexual orientation. If passed, H.R. 3685 is virtually certain to encourage burdensome litigation beyond the cases that the bill is intended to reach.
Provisions of this bill purport to give Federal statutory significance to same-sex marriage rights under State law. These provisions conflict with the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as the legal union between one man and one woman. The Administration strongly opposes any attempt to weaken this law, which is vital to defending the sanctity of marriage.
If I were being perceived as "gay", I would make an effort to not be so swishy.
Like this guy, for example. He claims to be straight.
Obviously, there is room for improvement.
UGH. The prospective employee sashays around or speaks with an obnoxious lisp? You don’t hire him because of their lack of professionalism or communication skills; it has nothing to do with their homosexuality. If a gay man interviews for a job, and is the best candidate for that job, he will be hired.
No one refuses to hire people purely on the basis of their sexuality. Why? Because, unlike race, sexuality isn’t a characteristic that can be identified on sight. When you walk in the door for an interview, your interviewer doesn’t know if you are homo, hetero, bi, or none of the above. If you are articulate and professional, then you have a good shot at getting the job. If you insist on talking about your sex life, or behave and speak in an unconventional manner (i.e. speak with a lisp or wear the clothes of the opposite sex), then you’re not going to get the job. That applies to everyone, gay and straight.
Keep your personal life out of the workplace, and there won’t be a problem.
Eggzaktly!
But if you don’t let your prospective employer know you are Gay how will he know that you are to be exalted and glorified above all others?
He should be able to tell by the touch of pink you wear as part of your ensemble.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.